Super Rugby - The Future
-
@mariner4life although given the toll on the body, elite rugby players should be paid more.
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@mariner4life although given the toll on the body, elite rugby players should be paid more.
You get paid what the market says you're worth. To get more they need to generate more money
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@mariner4life although given the toll on the body, elite rugby players should be paid more.
You get paid what the market says you're worth. To get more they need to generate more money
@mariner4life not arguing that, just that they should get more, but eyeballs matter.
-
As expected down to 11 teams, gonna be awesome having a team sitting out each week due to the odd number of sides, gee I can't wait for an even shorter & more watered-down competition next year with less teams and more byes for everyone...
-
As expected down to 11 teams, gonna be awesome having a team sitting out each week due to the odd number of sides, gee I can't wait for an even shorter & more watered-down competition next year with less teams and more byes for everyone...
@ruggabee said in Super Rugby - The Future:
As expected down to 11 teams, gonna be awesome having a team sitting out each week due to the odd number of sides, gee I can't wait for an even shorter & more watered-down competition next year with less teams and more byes for everyone...
If it makes Aust team more competitive it will be a good thing
NZ should now help MP too. Maybe by allowing say 5-6 PLAYERS WHO WILL STILL EB ELIGIBLE FOR THE ABS.
Then look at adding one extra team as 12 seems a good number. For 6 making the finals
-
what were the rules for MP and the AB's? we cant pick AB's if they play for MP?
-
-
@ruggabee said in Super Rugby - The Future:
As expected down to 11 teams, gonna be awesome having a team sitting out each week due to the odd number of sides, gee I can't wait for an even shorter & more watered-down competition next year with less teams and more byes for everyone...
If it makes Aust team more competitive it will be a good thing
NZ should now help MP too. Maybe by allowing say 5-6 PLAYERS WHO WILL STILL EB ELIGIBLE FOR THE ABS.
Then look at adding one extra team as 12 seems a good number. For 6 making the finals
@Winger said in Super Rugby - The Future:
NZ should now help MP too. Maybe by allowing say 5-6 PLAYERS WHO WILL STILL EB ELIGIBLE FOR THE ABS.
That defeats the stated purpose of the team. If NZR were serious they'd change the name and give North Harbour/ Northland the franchise.
-
@ploughboy said in Super Rugby - The Future:
opps should muti task
moana pasifika should relocate to melborneDo you really think Melbourne will support MP when they can't even get behind their own team?
-
@ploughboy said in Super Rugby - The Future:
opps should muti task
moana pasifika should relocate to melborneDo you really think Melbourne will support MP when they can't even get behind their own team?
@canefan the point was it never REALLY was their own team...little too no connection to the local rugby scene above age grade, from day one they tried to buy people in, the suburbs are full of kiwi and PI expats...would take a really deliberate campaign including signing local guys, given them a shot....would still be a huge uphill slog but MP are currently 11th and all but homeless....so im not sure it would be worse
-
you have to be realistic though
The Storm are 25 years old, have won 6 Grand Finals, lost a few more, and are a perennial top 4 side, and they average 20k at home. Now, that's twice what the Rebels pull, i get that, but it's still not huge.
The Melbourne A-League clubs don't pull much more than the Rebels.
Just because you will get 80k to an AFL regular season game in Melbourne does not mean there is a huge untapped market just waiting there.
The Rebels will never pull enough support in Melbourne to be sustainable, and the ARU doesn't make enough to subsidise the Club enough to pay the kind of salaries they throw around.
-
@canefan the point was it never REALLY was their own team...little too no connection to the local rugby scene above age grade, from day one they tried to buy people in, the suburbs are full of kiwi and PI expats...would take a really deliberate campaign including signing local guys, given them a shot....would still be a huge uphill slog but MP are currently 11th and all but homeless....so im not sure it would be worse
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@canefan the point was it never REALLY was their own team...little too no connection to the local rugby scene above age grade, from day one they tried to buy people in, the suburbs are full of kiwi and PI expats...would take a really deliberate campaign including signing local guys, given them a shot....would still be a huge uphill slog but MP are currently 11th and all but homeless....so im not sure it would be worse
was kind of my point but to lazy to write.
MP havnt really got a home and have to fight the blues for traction.plenty of good rugby guys in melborne to lock in to. -
you have to be realistic though
The Storm are 25 years old, have won 6 Grand Finals, lost a few more, and are a perennial top 4 side, and they average 20k at home. Now, that's twice what the Rebels pull, i get that, but it's still not huge.
The Melbourne A-League clubs don't pull much more than the Rebels.
Just because you will get 80k to an AFL regular season game in Melbourne does not mean there is a huge untapped market just waiting there.
The Rebels will never pull enough support in Melbourne to be sustainable, and the ARU doesn't make enough to subsidise the Club enough to pay the kind of salaries they throw around.
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
you have to be realistic though
just undermine everything we do here why dont you?
i do wonder how melbourne keeps three professional A-league teams, its not the crowds, is the broadcast deal that much better? or are they propped up by the A-League? do football players just get paid a lot less than rugby players? i would be surprised
-
I'd assume football is more popular in Australia than rugby union, ergo more money to sustain the league?
-
yeah i don't know the A-League math
A quick google tells me Victory and City have wage bills of about $5.6m for 18 players, or an average of a little over $300k. I had a look at Victory's financials, and they have about $20m in revenue but lose a couple of million a year.
-
jesus the A-league's broadcast deal is dogshit! it makes the ARU look loaded.
Where the fuck is their money coming from?
-
actually Melbourne city is owned by the city group isnt it, Machester city, one of the MLS teams...so bankrolled by the middle east
also smaller squads will help, fewer truly specialist positions, i defender can play up front if they have too, keeper pretty much the only one
-
@canefan but how does money get into these pro teams if not through the crowds?....so yeah, there are loads of clubs (south Melbourme is still pushing for their own A-League spot).....but theyre not bank rolling the pro clubs
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@canefan but how does money get into these pro teams if not through the crowds?....so yeah, there are loads of clubs (south Melbourme is still pushing for their own A-League spot).....but theyre not bank rolling the pro clubs
One of them is owned by a petro-state.
